It seems every thread i've been in lately we are arguing about what the Orthodox actually believe... *le sigh*

Not really. In this case just a discussion on praxis. Every Orthodox believes that Christ is truly present and that He is to be adored.

I have been told that it would be inappropriate for an EO to adore Christ in the Eucharist.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

the Byzantine practice of reserving the elements seems to be an innovation.

Not true. The reserved mysteries were established before Chalcedon. We have, of course, the canons to testify of the reserved sacrament for the sick, beginning with the Canons of Nicea:CANON 13: "CONCERNING the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him."

But we have, of course, more testimony than just this:

Quote

EXCURSUS ON THE COMMUNION OF THE SICK.

There is nothing upon which the ancient church more strenuously insisted than the oral reception of the Holy Communion. What in later times was known as "Spiritual Communion" was outside of the view of those early days; and to them the issues of eternity were considered often to rest upon the sick man's receiving with his mouth "his food for the journey," the Viaticum, before he died. No greater proof of how important this matter was deemed could be found than the present canon, which provides that even the stern and invariable canons of the public penance are to give way before the awful necessity of fortifying the soul in the last hour of its earthly sojourn.

Possibly at first the Italy Sacrament may have been consecrated in the presence of the sick person, but of this in early times the instances are rare and by was considered a marked favour that such a thing should be allowed, and the saying of mass in private houses was prohibited (as it is in the Eastern and Latin churches still to-day) with the greatest

The necessity of having the consecrated bread and wine for the sick led to their reservation, a practice which has existed in the Church from the very beginning, so far as any records of which we are in possession shew.

St. Justin Martyr, writing less than a half century after St. John's death, mentions that "the deacons communicate each of those present, and carry away to the absent the blest bread, and wine and water."(1) It was evidently a long established custom in his day.

Tertullian tells us of a woman whose husband was a heathen and who was allowed to keep the Holy Sacrament in her house that she might receive every morning before other food. St. Cyprian also gives a most interesting example of reservation. In his treatise "On the Lapsed" written in A.D. 251, (chapter xxvi), he says: "Another woman, when she tried with unworthy hands to open her box, in which was the Holy of the Lord, was deterred from daring to touch it by fire rising from it."

It is impossible with any accuracy to fix the date, but certainly before the year four hundred, a perpetual reservation for the sick was made in the churches. A most interesting incidental proof of this is found in the thrilling description given by St. Chrysostom of the great riot in Constantinople in the year 403, when the soldiers "burst into the place where the Holy Things were stored, and saw all things therein," and "the most holy blood of Christ was spilled upon their clothes."(2) From this incident it is evident that in that church the Holy Sacrament was reserved in both kinds, and separately....It will not be uninteresting to quote in this connection the "Apostolic Constitutions," for while indeed there is much doubt of the date of the Eighth Book, yet it is certainly of great antiquity. Here we read, "and after the communion of both men and women, the deacons take what remains and place it in the tabernacle."

It seems every thread i've been in lately we are arguing about what the Orthodox actually believe... *le sigh*

Not really. In this case just a discussion on praxis. Every Orthodox believes that Christ is truly present and that He is to be adored.

I have been told that it would be inappropriate for an EO to adore Christ in the Eucharist.

Who told you that?

I have been thold that on this forum before. I'll have to look around for the exact posts, but the argument basically stated that the Eucharist is for eating, not adoring, so we should not worship Christ in the Eucharist.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

It seems every thread i've been in lately we are arguing about what the Orthodox actually believe... *le sigh*

Not really. In this case just a discussion on praxis. Every Orthodox believes that Christ is truly present and that He is to be adored.

I have been told that it would be inappropriate for an EO to adore Christ in the Eucharist.

Who told you that?

I have been thold that on this forum before. I'll have to look around for the exact posts, but the argument basically stated that the Eucharist is for eating, not adoring, so we should not worship Christ in the Eucharist.

I sincerely apologize for this misinformation that someone has given you and presented it as Orthodox.

For all you Orthodox, let it be known that immediately after the Epiklisis, the following words are said with the Priest's head inclined toward the gifts: "Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith." and again:"We also offer to You this spiritual worship for the whole world, for the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and for those living in purity and holiness"

And again, after the clergy Commune the following rubrics and prayer (note, if a deacon is present he may say the words, but the connection with the Mysteries is clear:

The priest then transfers the remaining portions of the consecrated Bread into the holy Cup, saying:

"Having beheld the resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One. We venerate Your cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Your holy resurrection. You are our God. We know no other than You, and we call upon Your name. Come, all ye faithful, let us venerate the holy resurrection of Christ. For behold, through the cross joy has come to all the world. Blessing the Lord always, let us praise His resurrection. For enduring the cross for us, He destroyed death by death."

For all you Orthodox, let it be known that immediately after the Epiklisis, the following words are said with the Priest's head inclined toward the gifts: "Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith." and again:"We also offer to You this spiritual worship for the whole world, for the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and for those living in purity and holiness"

And again, after the clergy Commune the following rubrics and prayer (note, if a deacon is present he may say the words, but the connection with the Mysteries is clear:

The priest then transfers the remaining portions of the consecrated Bread into the holy Cup, saying:

"Having beheld the resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One. We venerate Your cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Your holy resurrection. You are our God. We know no other than You, and we call upon Your name. Come, all ye faithful, let us venerate the holy resurrection of Christ. For behold, through the cross joy has come to all the world. Blessing the Lord always, let us praise His resurrection. For enduring the cross for us, He destroyed death by death."

There is also, at least in Russian practice, the bow or full prostration at the final presentation of the Holy Gifts after the communion of the faithful. But this takes place, along with the other instances, in the context of the liturgy. It was my perhaps mistaken understanding that the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament was, at least traditionally (before 1940), extraliturgical. Perhaps this is a reason for some of the Eastern Orthodox hang-up, though I, personally, do not have a problem with it. When an Orthodox priest carries the Reserve Sacrament to the sick, though this is not in the context of sacramental liturgy (no "Blessed is the Kingdom..."), reverence for the Holy Gifts would be expected--of what kind--incense, prostrations, etc. I am not certain. I would probably do a prostration. The only way to be sure of what we should do is to find out what was done in 19th century Russia when the priest went from the church to the homes of sick people with the Holy Gifts.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

the Byzantine practice of reserving the elements seems to be an innovation.

Not true. The reserved mysteries were established before Chalcedon. We have, of course, the canons to testify of the reserved sacrament for the sick, beginning with the Canons of Nicea:CANON 13: "CONCERNING the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him."

But we have, of course, more testimony than just this:

Quote

EXCURSUS ON THE COMMUNION OF THE SICK.

There is nothing upon which the ancient church more strenuously insisted than the oral reception of the Holy Communion. What in later times was known as "Spiritual Communion" was outside of the view of those early days; and to them the issues of eternity were considered often to rest upon the sick man's receiving with his mouth "his food for the journey," the Viaticum, before he died. No greater proof of how important this matter was deemed could be found than the present canon, which provides that even the stern and invariable canons of the public penance are to give way before the awful necessity of fortifying the soul in the last hour of its earthly sojourn.

Possibly at first the Italy Sacrament may have been consecrated in the presence of the sick person, but of this in early times the instances are rare and by was considered a marked favour that such a thing should be allowed, and the saying of mass in private houses was prohibited (as it is in the Eastern and Latin churches still to-day) with the greatest

The necessity of having the consecrated bread and wine for the sick led to their reservation, a practice which has existed in the Church from the very beginning, so far as any records of which we are in possession shew.

St. Justin Martyr, writing less than a half century after St. John's death, mentions that "the deacons communicate each of those present, and carry away to the absent the blest bread, and wine and water."(1) It was evidently a long established custom in his day.

Tertullian tells us of a woman whose husband was a heathen and who was allowed to keep the Holy Sacrament in her house that she might receive every morning before other food. St. Cyprian also gives a most interesting example of reservation. In his treatise "On the Lapsed" written in A.D. 251, (chapter xxvi), he says: "Another woman, when she tried with unworthy hands to open her box, in which was the Holy of the Lord, was deterred from daring to touch it by fire rising from it."

It is impossible with any accuracy to fix the date, but certainly before the year four hundred, a perpetual reservation for the sick was made in the churches. A most interesting incidental proof of this is found in the thrilling description given by St. Chrysostom of the great riot in Constantinople in the year 403, when the soldiers "burst into the place where the Holy Things were stored, and saw all things therein," and "the most holy blood of Christ was spilled upon their clothes."(2) From this incident it is evident that in that church the Holy Sacrament was reserved in both kinds, and separately....It will not be uninteresting to quote in this connection the "Apostolic Constitutions," for while indeed there is much doubt of the date of the Eighth Book, yet it is certainly of great antiquity. Here we read, "and after the communion of both men and women, the deacons take what remains and place it in the tabernacle."

It seems that some of the sources are referring to the practice of Eucharistic ministers temporarily reserving the Holy Mysteries to minister them to absentees after the service. That is not what I was referring to. I know that this practice is very old, possibly going back to the Apostolic church, and it is indeed practiced in the Coptic church. What I was addressing was the other practice of perpetually keeping the Holy Mysteries in a Tabernacle on the altar, which the article only attributes to be certainly the case by 400 in certain churches. I have also seen references to Saint Basil the Great on this. Nonetheless, it appears to only have picked up in certain churches and only developed in the 4th century.

It seems every thread i've been in lately we are arguing about what the Orthodox actually believe... *le sigh*

Not really. In this case just a discussion on praxis. Every Orthodox believes that Christ is truly present and that He is to be adored.

I have been told that it would be inappropriate for an EO to adore Christ in the Eucharist.

Who told you that?

I have been thold that on this forum before. I'll have to look around for the exact posts, but the argument basically stated that the Eucharist is for eating, not adoring, so we should not worship Christ in the Eucharist.

I sincerely apologize for this misinformation that someone has given you and presented it as Orthodox.

Thank you for clearing that up. I actually feel much better about the situation now.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

It seems every thread i've been in lately we are arguing about what the Orthodox actually believe... *le sigh*

Not really. In this case just a discussion on praxis. Every Orthodox believes that Christ is truly present and that He is to be adored.

I have been told that it would be inappropriate for an EO to adore Christ in the Eucharist.

Who told you that?

I have been thold that on this forum before. I'll have to look around for the exact posts, but the argument basically stated that the Eucharist is for eating, not adoring, so we should not worship Christ in the Eucharist.

If interpreted correctly, that statement has some truth to it, and may not mean what you are thinking. If applied to the Latin practice, it could simply mean that the Holy Mysteries should not be saved for a purpose outside of them being consumed, which is true. However, the idea that they should not be worshiped in the context of Holy Communion is not correct.

"The belief of the Church is further manifested in the reverence andworship of the Eucharist as such, independently of Communion. Thefaithful pay worship to the Holy Gifts after they have been consecrated, byvirtue of the Presence of our Lord, abiding under the form of bread andwine. This worship belongs to the Consecrated Elements not abstractly butconcretely in their union with the Person of the Word of God.

"As the human nature of our Lord is an object of worship not asregarded in itself, abstractly, but by virtue of the hypostatic union,so the Holy Gifts are worshipped because they are the God-man, His Presencewith soul and Divinity, in every particle of the ConsecratedElements.

"The Risen Christ, into whose Body and Blood the Elements aretransmuted, never dies, having a spiritual and glorified Body undividedfrom His Blood. In the Eucharist He is present with all His constituentelements, His soul and His Divinity, Body and Blood undivided."

2) Fr Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" used as a text book at Jordanville:--

"Although the bread and wine are transformed in the Mystery into the Bodyand Blood of the Lord, He is present in this Mystery with all His being,that is, with His soul and with His very Divinity, which is inseparablyunited to His humanity.

"... those who receive Communion receive the entire Christ in His being,that is, in His soul and Divinity, as perfect God and perfect man."

"... to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist there should be given the samehonour and worship that we are obliged to give to the Lord Jesus ChristHimself."

That doesn't answer my question. What is to be done with the child? Could you, or I speak and have a conversation with the child? Would we have to bury the child? This is what I meant to ask, forgive me for being unclear.

That doesn't answer my question. What is to be done with the child? Could you, or I speak and have a conversation with the child? Would we have to bury the child? This is what I meant to ask, forgive me for being unclear.

That doesn't answer my question. What is to be done with the child? Could you, or I speak and have a conversation with the child? Would we have to bury the child? This is what I meant to ask, forgive me for being unclear.

This has never been addressed. Anyone care to take a crack at it?

Beyond my pay level.

I am only aware of one case of this happening, the Lamb appearing at the proskomide and throughout as a baby. It was not seen this way by the priest, but buy a practicioner of magic, because God revealed to him a spiritual mystery. The result of this was moving him and a friend to salvation, leading them to abandon magic. The story is much longer than this and revolves, actually, around the Holy Cross, but this was the beginning. So, the priest only saw bread. Now awkward eucharistic moments there, for the priest at least.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

That doesn't answer my question. What is to be done with the child? Could you, or I speak and have a conversation with the child? Would we have to bury the child? This is what I meant to ask, forgive me for being unclear.

This has never been addressed. Anyone care to take a crack at it?

We shouldn't bury it as it is stated that it should be "preserved with care." I suppose you could talk to it if it talks to you first. If the child talks you could ask the child what you are to do next. If the child does not talk I would suggest calling the Bishop and getting Him on a plane immediately. As Fr.A said, this is above the paygrade of a priest. This is the job for the mitre.

That doesn't answer my question. What is to be done with the child? Could you, or I speak and have a conversation with the child? Would we have to bury the child? This is what I meant to ask, forgive me for being unclear.

This has never been addressed. Anyone care to take a crack at it?

Beyond my pay level.

In the story I know from Egypt, the Holy Child was immediately struck by an angel to turn into the blood in the chalice from what I remember. Then the figure in the priests hand immediately turned into the Body of Christ in the semblance of Wine and Bread.

That particular icon has the appearance of one of the thousands of small prints which are printed in Russia. They have a nice look and cost only a dollar or two. You would need to ask around the Orthodox book shops in the States.

Is this to be taken literally? I have seen some icons with a very tiny Christ inside the chalice, obviously implying the real presence. But is there really a living breathing child in the chalice? And are there other accounts of this child in Orthodox sources?

My priest told me of this happening in Serbia when a priest who was secretly an athiest was serving (during the Communist times). The bread and wine in the chalice turned into real flesh and blood, and the Bishop was called in to deal with it. The priest confessed his sin, converted and, from what my priest told me, ended up a pretty holy person. I forgot what my priest said was done with the contents of the chalice, but he did say that there were rubrics in the service books in Serbia and Russia that deal with these events. I don't know if I would call this a "Ecucharistic Miracle" since it is not more miraculous that what happens normally, just more unusual. As to a child being in the chalice, I always took the icon the same as you did, symbolic of the real presence.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 04:37:00 PM by Punch »

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I've heard from a very trusted family member that they were in a small Eastern Orthodox church. As the priest was giving out communion, more communion kept "bubbling up" in the chalice. It continued to do this until the chalice almost overflowed. The priest called the small congregation over to witness.

When this person explained it to me she was very "excited and scared".

In the city of Lanciano, Italy, around 700, a Basilian monk and priest were assigned to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the small Church of St. Legontian. Celebrating in the Greek Rite and using leavened bread, that monk had doubts about the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist[citation needed].

During the Divine Liturgy, when he said the Words of Consecration (This is my body. This is my blood), with doubt in his soul, the priest saw the bread change into living flesh and the wine change into live blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size (this number supposedly corresponds to the number of wounds Christ suffered on the cross: one in each hand and foot from the nails, and the wound from the centurion's spear).

So I owe you an apology. Sorry!

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)